Abortion Rights On the Chopping Block

Post Reply New Topic

ITYM "It's my definition that matters".

Again, you can't tell people what isn't necessary for them.

You haven't lived their life. The whole anti-abortion movement is always about other people. Never about self-control. It's always about telling other people what they can do rather than being responsible for your own life. It's always about telling people you've never met that you know what's best for their lives better than they do.

---

Yawn, As Far As 'the Importance

Of Abortion', It's A Natural Part of
Nature (God) That Comes With Population

Stresses For Basic Subsistence Needs;

If 'You' (The 'Religious Dude' Here)
Don't Believe it is Part of

'God' As Nature

Then You

Obviously Don't

Believe God is Nature...

When We Come to See the World

As Natural It's So Much Easier to

See How DarK is Part of LiGHT...

Most Everything That is Going 'Stinky'

With the World of Human Nature is Imbalance...

There Are too Many of Us Consuming the Rest of Nature

Out of Balance And Mother Nature Will Bite Back And Not Give

A G Dam About Any Books That Are Fool Enough to Suggest

We Dominate

Nature; We

Are Part

of Nature;

Abortion is Part

of Nature; and Yes,

Roses Grow Great out
of Manure; Get Used to the

Fact That There is DarK and
LiGHT iN Life And You Ain't

Gonna Stop the Manure From Growing Roses;

And If You Do, You Still Get to Wilt With the Rest of Us, True too

In all That Colors The World Ugly of 'the Color Trump' And All of the
World That At Least Provides Health Care With 'The Color Obama And Biden'...

It's True, Mostly Hairless
Apes Stronger

Together

In the Deep Stuff
That Makes Roses
Grow or The Flowers that Come Next For Real...

And It's True, We All Have Opinions That 'Feed The Squirrels' too...

'You' Don't Believe Women Should Have Free Agency And You Do Believe Men Should...

Okay,

For 'You' i Guess...

In My Opinion, Life is Bigger Than that View...

Yet of Course, i am Only Feeding The Squirrels Here Like

Everyone Else...

-Nature

(See What i Mean,
i Told You We aRe Human 'Butt Naked'
'God Nature' Over Here in Northwest Florida, hehe)

Other than That You Sure Aren't Gonna Convince me that NATURE isn't Real...

You'd Might Be Surprised How Many Folks Spend THeir Life Trying To Convince Folks Nature Isn't God...

It's Like They

Look All THeir

Life And Never

Even Find Themselves

True as They Ironically

Abort Themselves From Nature
in Human Clothes And Other Tools
Away, Away, Away From True Naked

Nature Reality Now...

Hint:

*Eve Pass the Popcorn,
The Sun Is Out For
Spring Break
After Northwest Florida Christmas
IN December i'm Ready Now to Go Play...

HEhe, Like

i Ever Stop
Dancing And Singing
And Playing 'This Flute' Baby...

-Pan

(Still GRoWinG Horns at 61)

Clue: Don't Lose YouR 'Nature'...

---

It’s the definition that’s relevant. I haven’t hidden or disguised my intentions. Most serious PPR discussions I’ve seen here operated within some framework established by those discussing it. If someone suggests that abortion is a “need,” then it becomes important to establish what needs are and what they are not. The most basic, absolute human needs are those for sustaining life. Abortion, in that sense of the term, does not often qualify as a need.

It might prove necessary for other things, yes. But killing my boss, killing certain coworkers, or even killing high school kids could prove necessary in achieving my own goals. So if it is important to respect one person’s needs in killing one or more persons, then so must also my needs be respected. In reality, of course, I don’t actually WANT to kill anybody, nor do I ever intend to kill anyone. My point is that by assuming human life to be the standard of value, you cannot arbitrarily destroy one human life because it poses an inconvenience and prosecute someone else for doing the same thing for the same reason. If one is murder, so is the other. However, if one is self-defense, then so is the other. Making a case for someone posing a threat to one’s right to exist is reasonable and understandable.

The narrow definition of need/necessity/necessary as fundamental to sustaining life, i.e. a basic and absolute need, is relevant because it plays a role in defining both murder and justifiable homicide. Since keeping someone alive is the focus, then the discussion turns to the question of whether keeping someone alive means that someone has to die, or if keeping a group alive means one person has to die. If you must justify who dies, it is reasonable to kill the threatening person, not those being threatened. I would even take that a step further and say that it is RESPONSIBLE to kill the threatening person.

The idea that I cannot say what someone needs in the sense that all humans have common, basic, absolute needs is absurd. Of course I can say what another human being needs. Humans cannot live without oxygen. Thankfully, oxygen is abundant enough. Humans cannot live without a source of water. Water CAN be scarce, so people tend to live together near rivers and dig wells or cisterns. Humans can go weeks without food, but sooner or later humans have to figure out where food is coming from. And humans need shelter against wild animals and the elements. Needs above that tend to be hierarchical but are always irrelevant without meeting basic needs. Needs presume one’s right to exist, and so concepts like justice serve to support the most basic needs. Supporting one’s right to defend himself while punishing those who commit unjustifiable homicide, i.e. murder, is the proper role of justice.

Therefore, it is not unjust to point out abortion is not a basic, absolute need required for life. It would be absurd to say abortion even is a need in that sense because nobody would ever be born. Likewise, it is absurd to suggest that abortion is a basic human right. Basic human rights are linked to a person’s legal right to exist. If one does not possess the human right to deny another the right to exist, it is arbitrary and absurd to allow any murder regardless of any human being’s stage of development. It is not “mean,” “hateful,” or “sexist” to point out that abortion is not ordinarily a vital necessity when, objectively speaking, it is NOT a necessity.

When the right to exist is challenged, abortion is no different than self-defense and can become necessary in the same sense that killing an armed robber is necessary. It is necessary in the same sense the death penalty is necessary. Simply having a baby does not challenge a person’s right to exist. Pregnancies typically terminate in the course of nature—it is unnecessary to kill a baby to get rid of it. It is even possible for a woman to abandon a baby at the hospital and go about her life as though nothing happened while other adults are willing to foster and adopt children. A friend of mine actually did that—she and her husband had fertility issues, nearly went broke from treatments, and found adoption expenses were just as bad. They exploited a loophole that allowed them to foster an abandoned baby, accepted the risk that the mother could always come back, and then filed for legal adoption after so much time passed. So…pretty much adopted a baby for free. Why murder a baby when you can easily walk away from motherhood, no questions asked?

Sure, it’s not always been that easy, but it’s getting easier with each generation. And that means that most abortions are not simply unnecessary. They are increasingly irrelevant.

Show me how abortion preserves a person’s right to exist and you’ll also reveal its necessity.

Again, you CAN tell people…

Actually, your qualification is totally irrelevant. All laws have the effect of telling people what they can/can’t do and prescribe ways in which people are held responsible. Laws prohibiting murder presume to tell murderers that anti-murder people know what’s best for their lives than they do.

You may not realize it, but you pretty much laid out an argument for the abolition of perhaps not all, but at least most laws that regulate all sorts of behavior. Realistically, you probably want to keep unjustifiable homicide on the books, but I do believe that many laws we have have the effect of allowing government to have an unreasonably intrusive hold on human activities. So…sure, given that logic, allow abortion as a woman exercising her individual right to her own body. But allow abortion simply by getting rid of any law regulating it. That also means eliminating the EPA, the FDA, and the FCC (I’m a musician, and I’m sick and effing tired of government cronies interfering with wireless mic frequencies to satisfy the greed of mobile providers). In fact, get rid of all laws respecting monopolies (anti-trust laws don’t eliminate anti-competitive companies or industries, just arbitrarily regulates them). That’s an attractive option to me because, relating to abortion, the over-abundance or over-availability of something drags down its value, thus eliminating any objective reasoning for getting (or even providing) abortion services in the first place. You certainly eliminate any hype surrounding it. The emergence of a more moral, value-centered society would mean the elimination of unplanned pregnancies, anyway, crushing the abortion issue into irrelevance.

It was said before that six months is too early to tell but what if just take a morning after pill after everytime you have sex? Would Texas lower the price of those by the industry so they can be taken every time after sex regularly, or is that not good?

Weeks, not months.

Oh yes sorry, weeks. Well could people still take the morning after pill after having sex then if abortion is off the table, access wise?

If people are doing that, why wouldn't they just take the normal daily birth control pill? I think the point is that options need to exist for when birth control fails or was unavailable and that advocating for another method for birth control misses the point.

Further, some conservatives wish to make it harder to access birth control as well.

But isn't the morning after pill a good option if the birth control pill fails? That is what I mean, take both. Take the birth control pill and the morning after pill as option in case the birth control pill fails, but take the morning after pill after every time you have sex, because doing so everytime, before waiting till it's too late?

The morning after pill is a higher dose of birth control pills. It's not used in an ongoing manner at that dosage because it doesn't need to be prescribed at the emergency dose when used daily.

What you're asking is essentially 'why aren't women obliged to use a much higher dose of daily birth control instead of having safer options available for when birth control fails?'

Okay what how about this then... Since women only have six weeks in Texas and since abortion is the only way to ensure a pregancy will not progress, what if they set up a system there where women could get an abortion every three months say as a standard medical procedure? Even if you are not pregnant just do it anyway, as a precaution, that way no pregancy would ever happen if you get an abortion every three months, pregant or not?

That, and the amped up hormone in the morning after pill makes for highly unpleasant side effects.

There are implants, injections, patches, and IUD’s that make the problem moot. They are expensive options, but more effective than condoms.

Ask my youngest son about the effectiveness of condoms.

Well, considering the goal in Texas is to eliminate access to abortion services I don't believe your proposal is likely to be acceptable to the anti-choicers and considering the goal of pro-choicers is to ensure access to voluntary abortion services I don't think you're likely to get any pro-choicers on board either.

But there is no law that says you can't right? The law just says not past six months, so it seems that doing it every three months would not technically be illegal based on the law?

Weeks, not months.

Why should women be obliged to get a medical procedure they likely don't need every 21 days in order to access medical services they have every right to?

Further, why wouldn't anti-choicers just close that loophole considering that their goal is to ban abortion?

It's not a viable strategy.